On Hector’s list of “things that might not exist” if the earth weren’t privileged in the way it is ALL subtend from #6. Without life (#6) there would be no #’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. #5, natural disasters, are not disasters to non-living systems that by definition don’t care what happens to them – disasters are only relevant to an observer that values some arrangements of matter more than others.

Poor arguments, Hector. Try again.

Dear Dr. Hector Alvarez,

Thank you for responding to my email. Per your request, I will answer your question later in this response, but I would like first to address your explanation for an atheist’s morality.

First of all, I am not arguing that atheists do not possess morality nor am I arguing that atheists are the scum of the earth. I am only arguing that you have no rational basis for your moral judgments.

Your “cause and effect” argument for morality just doesn’t seem to work. To see why, let us take a closer look. You state, “Anything that causes me pain is “BAD”. Anything that causes me to survive happily is “GOOD”. By your own definition, nerve endings cause “pain” and thus cause you to “survive happily” (self-interest). Consequently, pain and self-interest are then therefore the cause and guidepost of your morality. Following your logic, a living creature that feels pain or is motivated by self-interest will necessarily possess morality, since morality is the effect of these causes. Poke a mouse with a needle and its “nerve endings” will allow it to feel pain. A rat feels pain. A dog feels pain. A lion’s self-interest causes him to “survive happily” by inflicting pain on and eating a gazelle. A snake’s self-interest causes it to “survive happily” by inflicting pain on a mouse as it devours it for dinner. A shark might “survive happily” by eating a swimmer. By your own definition, these animals feel pain and also do what’s “good” for themselves and therefore should be making moral judgments. If they could make moral judgments, we would be holding them accountable. This demonstrates that some creatures that feel pain and act in there own self-interest do not possess moral reasoning capability. You stated, “The best moral systems are those that rely on known and verifiable causes.” I agree with this statement completely. However, if you still insist that pain is the cause of morality, you will then have to prove why it would cause morality in humans but not have the same effect in animals. Again, how does an atheist worldview account for human morality?

Perhaps Darwinist Philosopher Michael Ruse said it best when he stated “Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this…The point is that there is no scientific answer.” (my italics)

At this point, I would like to address your question regarding #6 and #7 on your list and your request for a scientific proof. To save time, perhaps you could allow me to focus on #6 (Life). Like morality, perhaps you are taking life for granted by the mere fact that it exists. According to evolutionary theory, the big bang produced light beams, which turned themselves into non-living matter. Then non-living matter turned itself into living matter.

If any of these events can be shown to be scientifically impossible, a creator must exist due to the impossibility of the contrary (evolution). As you know, every scientific experiment, including Miller/Urey, has failed to bring forth living matter from non-living matter, yet you still seem to accept this as probable. Not only has science failed to bring forth life from non-life, but it can’t even begin to account for its cause. The burden is really on you to scientifically demonstrate the path from light beams to the first cell, not to mention the path to humanity. If intelligent beings can’t bring forth life, why should I then believe that an extraordinary effect (life) can take place without a verifiable cause? If you now argue that this is possible but the cause is unknowable, you have perhaps just debunked evolution as a theory. If it is impossible to prove evolution’s falsity, it is not a scientific theory. You would then debunk your argument. To prove the ID theory invalid, you need only show that evolution can account for turning light beams into a cell. You said to me in your 1st response that the best moral systems don’t rely on some “unverifiable notion of what you think God wants”. One need only replace God with “evolutionary theory” to describe evolutionary logic. ‘The Privileged Planet’ is merely demonstrating the necessity for an intelligent designer due to the impossibility of the contrary.

I will now conclude by asking you again for a scientific account for morality, which you have failed to provide to date. If you do not respond with one, I will assume you don’t have one. If that’s the case, it’s game-over.

Blessings,
Saxe

Dear Saxe Roberts,
I will be glad to answer your question, but my letter is not about “good”
and “evil” or even about whether God exists, but rather about the inability
of Intelligent Design, as represented in The Privileged Planet, to explain how
it selected 2 features (intelligent life and observability) out of the million
others that might also not exist if the Earth were not positioned where it is.

The same problem would exist for The Privileged Planet, even if one
believed in God. And those other features need not be “evil” to expose the
inability of ID to make its selections. I could just as well make my point with
anything you might regard as “good.”

Nor did I argue that “evil” disproves the existence of a creator. It is
possible that a creator be “evil,” and so I am not sure that you even
understood my argument.

Your pronouncement that an “atheist worldview necessarily dictates that
we are nothing more than molecules in motion” reflects a very poor
understanding of atheism, let alone basic physics and chemistry.

GOD IS IRRELEVANT TO MORALITY
In any case, the answer to your question is, of course, that your
definitions of “good” and “evil” are subjective. Who says that “good” and “evil”
require theism? There are only two basic kinds of moral judges in this world:

1) Those who admit they are moral relativists;
2) Those who do not admit they are moral relativists.

Your morality is just as relative as any other, except you might use
“God” to justify what you do. Indeed, we can logically show that having a “God”
in any moral system is meaningless.

Having a god in a moral system is meaningless because it still would
render human beings the ultimate judge of bad and good. Basically, any statement
of the type “X is good because God says so” is still a human judgment.

In reality, there are only two choices in a world where ethics
involve a deity. To understand this dilemma, we need to consider a variant of
Euthyphro’s Dilemma as found in Plato’s Euthyphro. We can briefly summarize the
argument here.

Things are either good/evil in themselves;
or
They are good/evil because God says so.

If one says that something is good or evil in itself, then God becomes
unnecessary for morality. Something good would be as obvious as the fact that a
triangle has three sides. One does not need a god to make a triangle have
three sides, and so God would be unnecessary to establish such a moral principle.

If one says that something is moral because God says so, then this still
renders us the judge of morality. For we are the ones making the judgment
that “Whatever God calls good is what shall be called good.” Even if one says
that God planted our sense of goodness in us, we must still judge that something
God planted in us is good. There is no way to escape this circle.

Consequently, EVERY MORAL JUDGMENT IS ULTIMATELY A HUMAN JUDGMENT,
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN GOD OR NOT. God remains irrelevant as an ultimate source of
morality.

And, in fact, a God makes a moral system very ineffective and chaotic.
There are thousands of Christian organizations that believe in God, and do you
think that they agree on morality?

Not so. There are theists who believe homosexuality is a sin, and those
that believe it is not. There are biblical authors who think genocide is
sometimes obligatory, and theists who believe genocide is always wrong. There are
theists who believe that killing children is sometimes moral, and those that
don’t. Historically, God based moral systems are a disaster in terms of
providing any uniformity whatsoever.

HOW TO JUDGE GOOD AND BAD
So how do atheists judge morality, if that means the set of judgments
about what is good and bad for human beings? We all judge morality the same way,
whether we admit it or not. BY OUR OWN INTERESTS.

As a biological entity, you have nerve endings that react adversely to
what you call PAIN. Do you like pain? Anything that causes me pain is “BAD.”
Anything that causes me to survive
happily is ?GOOD.?

I don’t need a God to tell me that AIDS will kill me or not feel good. I
don’t need a god to tell me that I don’t want to live in a world where people
randomly kill each other. That would
not be in my best interest or those of my loved ones.

In sum, a God does not help a moral system. It only makes it more
chaotic. The best moral systems are those that rely on known and verifiable causes
and consequences, not on some unverifiable notion of what YOU THIINK a god wants.

If you want a more detailed case, read my new book Fighting Words: The
Origins
of Religious Violence (Prometheus Press, 2005), where I examine Judaism,
Christianity
and Islam quite thoroughly, and make the case that religious violence is
ALWAYS immoral.

BACK TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Again, my letter is not about whether God exists. But about whether the
methods of The Privileged Planet are the best to show that a Designer exists.

Now, please answer the issue on which my letter actually centered. The
following are some of the myriad of features that are, as far as we can
determine, also unique to the parameters and habitable zone in which Earth is
positioned:

1) AIDS viruses
2) congenital deformities
3) Cockroaches
4) Death
5) Katrina and other natural catastrophes
6) Life
7) Measurability by intelligent observers
Great movies
9) bar code printers
10) Paris Hilton

So, please answer this: How does one scientifically verify that the
Designer actually meant to position the planet so that #6 and #7 would exist “uniq
uely” rather than one, or a combination, of the other features on that list?

Please answer this question seriously and respectfully or please do not
contact me again. Nor can I promise to answer promptly, as I get a lot of
letters, and have other duties to perform as well.

Respectfully,
Dr. Hector Avalos
-I am usually no addressed by my first name, and it shows a great
lack of respect in my culture to do so.

You seem to be completely ignoring the fall from grace. As far as I know orthodox Christians understand the fall. It’s quite clear in the old testament. The world was created and maintained in a state of perfection. There was no pain, no death, no destruction. Humanity chose to defy God in an act known as original sin. God, respecting the free will of those He created in His image, left the world He created to its own devices. Without God to maintain a state of perfection things started going to hell. Lifetimes gradually decreased as the decay built up. Christ was sent to redeem our souls but not to restore perfection to the physical world. Restoration of perfection in the physical world is God’s promise but it hasn’t been fulfilled yet. The second coming of Christ is the fulfillment of that promise.

Now I ain’t no biblical scholar nor even a particularly good Christian as I’m nowhere near as charitable and gentle as the Lamb of God. But I do understand the gist of Christianity, the fall, etc. That’s all basic stuff you learn in Sunday school as a child. There’s absolutely no excuse for people purporting even minimal knowledge about Judeo-Christian scripture to not know why imperfection and evil exists in the world or to use the existence of same as evidence God does not exist.

I said “it doesn’t matter” if god exists or not because it’s a separate question that can be tackled later. As with ID, I think people are afraid of answering the first question (is there a designer?) because they fear the second question even more (who/what is the designer?). The first question can be answered, and should be answered independently.

The situation is the same in the case of morality. People don’t want to admit to an objective standard because they fear the next question – where did it come from? – and so they remain moral relativists. The problem with that is nothing is objectively good or evil; right or wrong. Not objective in the sense that we can’t really distinguish between the two extremes (subjective interpretation). Rather, it’s not objective because the extremes DON’T EXIST at all. They are illusions of the mind much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Tooth Fairy.

I’m wondering how. “Objective moral standard” implies an absoluteness to which we all must submit whether we like it or not, something we must, or at least ought to do. Without God (or some other transcendant entity) to define it, where does this standard come from?

I’ll drag out one of my favorite Chesterton quotes here.

“They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they cannot leave off being anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith…

An iconoclast may be indignant; an iconoclast may be justly indignant;
but an iconoclast is not impartial. And it is stark hypocrisy to pretend that nine-tenths of the higher critics and scientific evolutionists and professors of comparative religion are in the least impartial. Why should they be impartial, what is being impartial, when the whole world is at war about whether one thing is a devouring suspicion or a divine hope?”